V-triad: One wants Parallel, two want Kitchen Table

U

UnicornHunted

New member
Stated non-hierarchical established couple, plus one. F1 + F2 get along very well and care about each other deeply, but are not romantically attached.

Female 1 (10+ year marriage to M, desires only parallel poly to protect the marriage, despite claiming distaste for the idea of hierarchy)
Female 2 (1 year relationship to M, intense relationship and good fit for both F1 and M. Eventually desires kitchen table poly, does not desire permanent parallel poly)
Male (10+ year marriage to F1, but desperately wants kitchen poly to be possible. Does not desire parallel poly. Does not believe parallel poly will protect the marriage).

F2's opinions don't carry a lot of water to most, in this case. She's viewed as too new to have any real say in the matter, other than appearing to be a good long term fit for both married partners.

F1's opinions are based on insecurities that have nothing to do directly with M or F2, and she is working on them. But it's a slow painful process that may never be complete.

M's opinions are based on the desire to have both of his partners near, share high levels of commitment with both partners, and not have to encapsulate relationships.
____________

What are your opinions? How does one weight these opinions, and is it fair to make 2 out of 3 unhappy to provide (likely false) assurances to 1? Is it fair to do this for a set amount of time? When would you consider "choosing sides"?
 
Last edited:
You can't force someone to have a relationship they don't want, so if one of the women wants parallel poly the whole group is kind of stuck with it. Or the man can decide it's a deal breaker and no longer have a relationship with her.

I was the one wanting parallel poly at one point. My husband was dating a kitchen table type. They pushed and pushed that I finally tried. I HATED it. I just didn't like her enough for that. On paper, we complemented each other perfectly but irl... She got on my nerves. I didn't want her in my personal space. By pushing even after I told them I tried and wasn't feeling it, they had a terrible breakup. This could have been avoided by them being more kitchen table with her other partners/friends/chosen family group and more parallel with me. I was fine doing holidays and such together but the constant contact with her drove me insane.

Moral of the story? Just because people seem like perfect fits doesn't mean they are AND pushing people into relationships they don't want doesn't work.
 
Same with me. I'm just not on board with a daily contact with my metamour. I'm happiest if we don't see each other for weeks on end.

Idealist wants kitchen-table community style but I'm not up for that even if I liked the meta. It's my greatest obstacle to polyamory that the living arrangement I imagine for myself is really couple-style.
We're contemplating something like two flats next to each other where Idealist can just go between the homes but I don't have to share kitchen space. We'll see if we can make this happen.
 
I have questions. Could you please be willing to clarify?

M's opinions are based on the desire to have both of his partners near, share high levels of commitment with both partners, and not have to encapsulate relationships.
Click to expand...

What does "encapsulate" mean here? It sounds like everyone is aware of everyone else and consents to be in a poly grouping. The two females get along well and care about each other deeply. So... why is it "encapsulating" for M to be married to one of them over here, and date the other one over there and for them to get along well and care for each other deeply and not want to be romantic?

Is it that the male wants group sex, or cohabitation or a triad or something else? Is that what kitchen table poly means to M? And why is M "desperate" about wanting kitchen table poly? What does that solve for M?

What does it mean to the others? Kitchen poly like what? Hang out together once a month? Something else? Can that be "parallel enough" for the one who wants that and "together enough" for the ones that want that?

Protect the marriage from what? And can it be achieved in a different way?

Otherwise, M and F2 could accept that there's no kitchen table poly at this time. And make the decision to stop participating or accept parallel.

OR... they accept that there's no kitchen table poly at this time. They decide they will do parallel for X months in which F1 is supposed to work on her stuff and then reassess if kitchen table poly is possible in the future. If not, when they all reassess, they could make a decision about whether or not to keep going in this grouping/marriage.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
This sounds like a case of incompatibility regarding the needs of the individuals concerned and the kind of relationships and lifestyles each seeks; with the husband/male's goals more closely aligned with F2's and those of the newer partnership.

At only one year in, that could just be the NRE talking, or it could be that the style of polyamory espoused by these two (kitchen table) makes them more compatible long-term partners, moving into the future.

Unfortunately, not everything in life stays the same or ends up being completely fair or equal, even when we'd wish it to be so. And nobody should remain for too long in a relationship that no longer serves their needs or makes them happy.

That said... while it's good to express one's own needs and wants within a relationship, and to set goals for our own lives... nobody should try to coerce anyone else to participate in a relationship they don't really want, let alone share their home with a metamour whose presence isn't truly welcome or who they don't feel adds anything positive to their domestic situation.

Everyone has the right to set boundaries and enforce limits within the confines of their own home. Nobody ought to be forced to share their personal space (whether house, kitchen, bed) with another person if they don't want to, especially if the situation is already crowded or complicated by the presence of young children or the needs of other lovers - although I'm assuming there are no other metas outside the people involved in this particular V(?) and OP doesn't mention kids.

However, I would add here that "time served" in any relationship doesn't automatically confer more rights, a higher standing within a polycule, or mean that an "older" relationship is necessarily stronger or more meaningful than one that began later. And claiming to be non-hierarchical while treating a newer partner/OSO as if her opinions, desires and needs are of less importance smacks of hypocrisy.

All the people involved in this situation need to think about what they really want out of life, then try to reach some form of compromise. Perhaps counselling might help, whether it be individual, couple/s or as a group. If this can't be achieved within a reasonable time frame, it may be best to continue with parallel poly... or break up with the one whose goals run counter to the majority.
 
Last edited:
UnicornHunted said:
....desires only parallel poly to protect the marriage
Click to expand...
It's important to have genuinely satisfying agreements in place, but nothing "protects" a marriage other than the marriage itself. The very need to restrain "outsiders" from harming a marriage belies a crack that already exists. People in emotionally secure relationships (married or not, poly or not) do not have a sense that their union needs "protection," they just feel secure because the relationship itself is emotionally secure, based on mutual appreciation for the agreements. If one or both partners feel that the relationship needs "protection," then there's already a pre-existing crack in the foundation and already a mis-match. The way forward is not to focus on keeping others out (although sexual and emotional exclusivity can very well be a mutually satisfying agreement - keyword: mutual*) but to firstly focus on clarifying the relationship agreements. Couples that run into trouble usually do not feel solid in their individual values and have not clearly expressed these individual values to each other.

UnicornHunted said:
F2's opinions don't carry a lot of water to most, in this case. She's viewed as too new to have any real say in the matter, other than appearing to be a good long term fit for both married partners.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that you're #2 since you're UnicornHunted?

In a good relationship, each partner's opinions are respected (married or not, poly or not) so discounting a partner's thoughts because she is "new" is BS. But, we only feel respected by others when we first respect ourselves. Nobody who feels disrespected has esteem for her own opinions in that situation. The way to make this better is not to demand respect of others, which is always futile, but to make some internal changes and value your own thoughts and feelings. Only then will you see your own thoughts and feelings valued by others. Nobody can disrespect you if you respect yourself and nobody will respect you if you don't.


*Mutual does not mean that both partners must have the same desires. There are many happy mono-poly couples and many happy couples that have significantly different sexual/emotional desires. Mutual means that each partner appreciates and values her own desires while appreciating and valuing her partner's desires. Mutual appreciation is necessary, not mutual desires. Mutual desires are the most common and easier way for couples to go, but really it's the mutual appreciation that makes for the secure relationship. Again, any relationship that can be threatened by an "outsider" (whether it's an affair, poly, swinging, whatever) is a relationship that had a pre-existing lack of mutual appreciation for the individual desires. That's why I object to the terms "cowgirl" and "other woman" and other such demonizing of the power of female sexuality. Nobody can lure anyone away who does not want to go.
 
Last edited:
Hello UnicornHunted,

Two things stood out for me while I was reading your post. First, F1 is essentially outvoted, F2 and M both want kitchen table. Second, F1's reasons for wanting parallel are weak, compared to F2's and M's reasons for wanting kitchen table, which are strong. If I have read correctly, then it seems that the thing to do is to convince F1 to change her mind, and that the key question to this thread is how to convince her, what to say to her so that she'll be convinced.

A question I have, is, have you (individually or as a group) done much talking to F1 about this issue, and if so, what did you say to her, and what did she say in response? Your answer to this (multipart) question will help me get some idea of what you can tell her that you haven't told her already. It's probably a frustrating situation for you, having F1 insist on parallel. Maybe you could give her a fixed amount of time (e.g. six months) in which you'll be parallel, but at the end of that time, she has to be ready to go kitchen table, she has that long to get over her own issues. You do have to consider whether you (F2 and M) are compatible with her (now or later).

I hope the three of you can work things out.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
In a situation like this, it seems to me that everyone needs to agree in order for a change to happen. Three people, three yeses required. If one person is saying "no" to kitchen table poly, then it's no unless that person changes her mind.

Regardless of the reason, some people just don't want to be involved in kitchen table poly. Not all of us want to wake up in the morning and have to share space with our metamours, or want to hang out with our metamour at night before they and our shared partner go off to bang. No matter how well someone gets along with a metamour, there are sometimes limits, and that's okay.
 
What do you mean when you say "kitchen table poly"? Some people use the term to mean that everyone needs to get along well enough to sit down for a meal together every now and then; others use it to mean cohabitation. I'm sure there are a range of definitions which fit between the two points. Are you all using the same definition?
 
Kitchen table poly doesn't mean that everyone lives together and waves each other off to go have sex in the next room, it means that the partners are congenial about socializing together and are friends. Friendship is a broad term, of course, but there is a family feel to these relationships. The partners are part of each other's lives. Cohabitation is not a necessary component of kitchen table poly.

Parallel Poly is freestanding relationships that rarely, if ever, overlap. The metas may interact on occasion, but separation between the couple relationships is the norm.
 
AlwaysGrowing said:
You can't force someone to have a relationship they don't want, so if one of the women wants parallel poly the whole group is kind of stuck with it. Or the man can decide it's a deal breaker and no longer have a relationship with her.

Moral of the story? Just because people seem like perfect fits doesn't mean they are AND pushing people into relationships they don't want doesn't work.
Click to expand...

This exactly. I want nothing what-so-ever to do with coercion on either end. It's abuse, no matter where it comes from, or whether intentional or not. Nobody can force you to have feelings for another. Wanting space from particular people is normal and healthy. The trouble is when your personal need for space doesn't feel like it's being met without your partner's presence; and this need for space isn't successfully met by dedicated time together 4-5+ nights (with weekends) per week.

I do, however, disagree that we're ever "stuck with" any relationship or relationship constraint (short of your own children). Something has to give, it's a matter of figuring out the least awful choice(s).
 
GalaGirl said:
What does "encapsulate" mean here? ... So... why is it "encapsulating" for M to be married to one of them over here, and date the other one over there and for them to get along well and care for each other deeply and not want to be romantic?
Click to expand...

Encapsulate: To lead separate lives, some here, and some there. There currently isn't room for the hinge in this scenario to make his own choices about the levels of commitment he desires to give each partner; not without defacto punishment. Encapsulating in this case would mean "non-primary" relationship(s) get their own bubble, free from dealing with the day-to-day, (and the primary one gets all the dirty work).

There is zero expectation of romance between the ends of the V; it's not required or being pushed. There has been mutual interest and satisfaction with 3-somes over the course of the year, but it's never an assumed arrangement. It's never required.

M and F2 do desire cohabitation at some point, and F1 would make both their lives richer, no matter what the romantic bonds are. Sharing day-to-day life is important for all three. Sharing meals, cooking together, doing chores, tackling projects, being available when someone needs to talk, making long term goals... etc. Sharing resources of time, energy, and ability on larger shared goals. "Many hands make light work", essentially.

Hanging out once a month, or once a week, (or in another way of putting it, being specifically excluded from your partner's life for X-number of days per week), doesn't appeal to any of us.

Protect the marriage from what? And can it be achieved in a different way?
Click to expand...
Addressing the root causes of individual insecurities is the "different way", and the only way that will protect anyone from anything. There is no relationship style that guarantees the high quality of any relationship, it can only guarantee or deny access.
 
lunabunny said:
At only one year in, that could just be the NRE talking, or it could be that the style of polyamory espoused by these two (kitchen table) makes them more compatible long-term partners, moving into the future.
Click to expand...
This is why input is desired. NRE could influence too much, so I hold my own opinion somewhat in reserve. Though knowing myself, I know that I do desire interconnected living that isn't restricted to romantic connections. I view day-to-day living as a joyful aspect of life to be shared with whomever you choose, (extended family, friends, loves) rather than something that can only be shared with a spouse and children. The isolated nuclear family concept or the "us two against the world" setup feels like grasping for the cultural standard of mono again; something I am absolutely not built for.

Unfortunately, not everything in life stays the same or ends up being completely fair or equal, even when we'd wish it to be so. And nobody should remain for too long in a relationship that no longer serves their needs or makes them happy.
Click to expand...

Fair is a goal, but equal cannot be. Nothing is ever truly equal, by virtue of no two people wanting the same things in the same measure. I think all three of us realize this and appreciate it. The trouble is when one's needs consume nearly all of the available resources and still feel "unmet". In that case, nobody can be happy.
 
FallenAngelina said:
Kitchen table poly doesn't mean that everyone lives together and waves each other off to go have sex in the next room, it means that the partners are congenial about socializing together and are friends. Friendship is a broad term, of course, but there is a family feel to these relationships. The partners are part of each other's lives. Cohabitation is not a necessary component of kitchen table poly.
Click to expand...
Fair points. While cohabitation is not a required component for kitchen table poly, it's the best descriptor I've found for "family-style" poly that doesn't include children and isn't assumed to be a full triad (every member romantically bonded to each other). Im using the term to describe the opposite of keeping relationships fully separate, with time spent largely (or entirely) choosing between partners. Kitchen table, to F2 and M, is a philosophy where non-intimate daily time and interactions are not automatically kept separate.
 
Hi again, UnicornHunted,

Within the confines of this V, F1 and F2 are both more or less "mono" in relation to the common hinge, M (F1's husband), correct?

I assume that F2's (your?) involvement with M began ethically and F1 consented to the relationship (i.e. was not coerced).

- Does F1 consider herself to be polyamorous, regardless of this particular relationship scenario?
- Does she have another partner of partners, or did she at any time during the past ten years (duration of their marriage)?
- Did M have other partners before you?
- If the answers to any of the above are "yes", do you know how those two, M and F1, conducted their previous relationships? i.e. What type of poly did they practice before you came on the scene?
- Did M always feel the way he currently does about wanting to integrate his relationships, kitchen table/family style, or are you the first person he has felt that strongly about? (If he didn't always feel this way, F1 may suspect F2 is trying to influence M to her/your way of thinking.)
- Has F1 been "burned" in the past by a disastrous experience with a metamour or an unsuccessful attempt to bring another partner into the marital home?
- Does she have low self esteem, issues with her physical appearance, a mental illness or disability that may be causing her to view herself as "less than" in comparison to F2, and subsequently view F2 as more of a potential threat or rival. (If so, F1 needs to work on her own issues, possibly with the help of a therapist.)

^ If you haven't already, these are all questions that need to be addressed before you can get much further down this road, and before the forum can give more situation-specific advice.

You say you all have participated in successful threesome sex on a number of occasion, and that the two females love each other as friends and hold each other in high esteem.

Therefore, I am somewhat confused because there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of segregation (encapsulation/compartmentalisation) going on here. You all are already doing the kitchen table poly thing, by many people's definition, minus the co-habitation component.

Still, I concur that a degree of "couple privilege" seems to exist within the current format. While I understand it must be frustrating when F1 continually states she's not into hierarchy, yet is disingenuously or passive-aggressively reinforcing the old codes by insisting M's time and resources be divided according to HER needs, you cannot insist she agree to share her home full-time with a third party if she doesn't want to.

Given you all get along very well as friends and feel some degree of attraction to each other, there may be scope to gradually increase time spent together if you don't push too hard at this early stage.
 
There currently isn't room for the hinge in this scenario to make his own choices about the levels of commitment he desires to give each partner; not without defacto punishment.
Click to expand...

What punishment? Who is doing the punishing?

The trouble is when one's needs consume nearly all of the available resources and still feel "unmet". In that case, nobody can be happy.
Click to expand...

Are you saying F1 (the wife) always has some sort of "thing" and then the other two have to rush to attend to that? So the dynamic revolves around a queen bee? Like... trying to fill the never ending black hole?

M and F2 do desire cohabitation at some point, and F1 would make both their lives richer, no matter what the romantic bonds are. Sharing day-to-day life is important for all three.
Click to expand...

So... is it that F1 doesn't mind sharing day-to-day life, but just does not want to live together? Or is it that F1 only wants to share day-to-day life with M?


Hanging out once a month, or once a week, (or in another way of putting it, being specifically excluded from your partner's life for X-number of days per week), doesn't appeal to any of us.
Click to expand...

Is this like both F1 and F2 want hinge M's time and attention? And don't want to be without him? And M feels stuck in a tug-o-war?

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Nicknames?

UnicornHunted,

Would you considering giving nicknames to the people involved? I'm having a terrible time keeping track of who is who.

Not a requirement, just a suggestion.
 
FallenAngelina said:
Kitchen table poly doesn't mean that everyone lives together and waves each other off to go have sex in the next room, it means that the partners are congenial about socializing together and are friends. Friendship is a broad term, of course, but there is a family feel to these relationships. The partners are part of each other's lives. Cohabitation is not a necessary component of kitchen table poly.

Parallel Poly is freestanding relationships that rarely, if ever, overlap. The metas may interact on occasion, but separation between the couple relationships is the norm.
Click to expand...

Valid point about kitchen table poly, though in my response I wasn't considering it as everyone living together, just as someone coming to the home of a partner and metamour and socializing with both of them before waving and heading off to have sex. I admit my post was colored by some wrangling I've been doing lately, because "family-style" anything is a loaded concept for me (I don't really have any positive associations with the word "family", and tend to refer to my kids and Hubby as "my kids and Hubby" rather than "my family" because of it), and I've been feeling some pressure lately to jump on the "poly-Borg collective" bandwagon. So I apologize if my post sounded harsh.
 
Last edited:
KC43 said:
Valid point about kitchen table poly, though in my response I wasn't considering it as everyone living together, just as someone coming to the home of a partner and metamour and socializing with both of them before waving and heading off to have sex. I admit my post was colored by some wrangling I've been doing lately, because "family-style" anything is a loaded concept for me (I don't really have any positive associations with the word "family", and tend to refer to my kids and Hubby as "my kids and Hubby" rather than "my family" because of it), and I've been feeling some pressure lately to jump on the "poly-Borg collective" bandwagon. So I apologize if my post sounded harsh.
Click to expand...

Same thing I am interested in. Granted some want a more normal relationship of two people with a girl friend on the side. I would rather have a kitchen table relationship.
 
The issue here isn't what is kitchen table or not. The issue is F1 is making F2 feel less than. M wants non-hierarchical but he is married to someone who is too insecure to do that. This puts M, the hinge, in an awkward position because F1 will give him grief.

F1 needs to address her insecurities.

M needs to decide if he and F1 are compatible.

F2 needs to decide if she wants to deal with the drama that will be in her future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top